https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151775 Exemption under Notification No. 6/2002 depended on whether cement was cleared with another person's brand name or trade name. The assessee produced evidence of registration and prior use of the RAMCO brand, while the department failed to prove with proper evidence that RAMCO belonged to another person. The factual basis relied on by the Commissioner was found insufficient, and the cited precedent was distinguished because the markings there clearly indicated a connection with another company. The denial of exemption was therefore unsustainable, and the duty demand, interest and penalty were set aside. en-us Fri, 01 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 15 Jun 2013 14:17:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151775 Exemption under Notification No. 6/2002 depended on whether cement was cleared with another person's brand name or trade name. The assessee produced evidence of registration and prior use of the RAMCO brand, while the department failed to prove with proper evidence that RAMCO belonged to another person. The factual basis relied on by the Commissioner was found insufficient, and the cited precedent was distinguished because the markings there clearly indicated a connection with another company. The denial of exemption was therefore unsustainable, and the duty demand, interest and penalty were set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 01 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151775